Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selection of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Formulary Inclusion

Making Decisions Based on Appropriate Criteria

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Disease Management & Health Outcomes

Abstract

To accurately assess any therapeutic class or specific agent for inclusion in the hospital formulary, a consistent evidence-based review process should be followed. Utilization of any therapeutic class, including the proton pump inhibitors, is more efficient if a single agent is used throughout the healthcare system. The lack of evidence supporting intravenous proton pump inhibitor therapy in stress-related mucosal damage and no comparative data in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding allows interchange of all agents more readily. Although many factors need consideration, the ideal proton pump inhibitor should be available orally and intravenously, and be prepared easily for administration to patients unable to swallow capsules or tablets. Using these criteria, the hospital system may be able to leverage the best possible cost for selection of a proton pump inhibitor for their formulary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Devlin JW, Welage LS, Olsen KM. Proton pump inhibitor formulary considerations in the acutely ill: part I. Pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, and available formulations. Ann Pharmacother 2005; 39: 1667–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Devlin JW, Welage LS, Olsen KM. Proton pump inhibitor formulary considerations in the acutely ill: part II. Clinical efficacy, safety, and economics. Ann Pharmacother 2005; 39: 1844–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. DeVault KR, Castell DO. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 190–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barkun AN, Bardou M, Marshall JK. Nonvariceal Upper GI Bleeding Consensus Conference Group. Consensus recommendations for managing patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139: 843–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leontiadis GI, McIntyre L, Sharma VK, et al. Proton pump inhibitor treatment for acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (3): CD002094

  6. Conrad SA, Gabrielli A, Margolis B, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of immediate-release omeprazole-oral suspension versus intravenous cimetidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2005; 33: 760–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Phillips JO, Metzler MH, Palmieri MT, et al. A prospective study of simplified omeprazole suspension for the prophylaxis of stress-related mucosal damage. Crit Care Med 1996; 24: 1793–800

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lasky MR, Metzler MH, Phillips JO. A prospective study of omeprazole suspension to prevent clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding from stress ulcers in mechanically ventilated trauma patients. J Trauma 1998; 44: 527–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Olsen KM, Bergman KL, Kaufman SS, et al. Omeprazole pharmacodynamics and gastric acid suppression in critically ill pediatric transplant patients. Ped Crit Care Med 2001; 2: 232–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Welage LS. Pharmacologic properties of the proton pump inhibitors: comparing the agents. Pharmacotherapy 2003; 23(10 pt 2): 74S–80S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Phillips JO, Olsen KM, Rebuck JA, et al. A randomized, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic, cross-over study of duodenal or jejunal administration compared to nasogastric administration of omeprazole suspension in patients at risk for stress ulcers. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 367–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaufman SS, Lyden ER, Brown CR, et al. Omeprazole therapy in pediatric patients following liver and intestinal transplantation. Ped Gastroenter Nutr 2002; 34: 194–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaplan GG, Bates D, McDonald D. Inappropriate use of intravenous proton pump inhibitors: problem extent and cost implications [abstract]. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97 Suppl.: S236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Afif W, Alsulaiman R, Martel M, et al. Predictors of inappropriate utilization of proton pump inhibitors. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25: 609–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Odedina FT, Sullivan J, Nash R, et al. Use of pharmacoeconomic data in making hospital formulary decisions. Am J Health-Sys Pharm 2002; 59: 1441–4

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chan J, Hui RL, Szpakowski JL. Prescribing proton pump inhibitors for initial treatment of acid-related gastrointestinal disease in a managed care population. Am J Manag Care 2004; 10: 433–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Miner P Jr, Katz PO, Chen Y, et al. Gastric acid control with esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole: a five-way crossover study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2616–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Katz PO, Ginsberg GG, Hoyle PE, et al. Relationship between intragastric acid control and healing status in the treatment of moderate to severe erosive oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007 Mar 1; 25(5): 617–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Richter JE, Kahrilas PJ, Johanson J, et al. Efficacy and safety of esomeprazole compared with omeprazole in GERD patients with erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 656–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kahrilas PJ, Falk GW, Johnson DA, et al. Esomeprazole improves healing and symptom resolution as compared to omeprazole in reflux oesophagitis patients: a randomised controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000; 14: 1249–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Castell DO, Kahrilas PJ, Richter JE, et al. Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 575–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Labenz J, Armstrong D, Lauritsen K, et al. A randomized comparative study of exomeprazole 40mg compared with pantoprazole 40mg for erosive oesophasitis: the EXPO study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 21: 739–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Granlek IM, Dulaie GS, Fennerty MB, et al. Esomeprazole versus other proton pump inhibitors in erosive esophagitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 1452–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. US Food and Drug Administration. Drug approvals for October 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/da/dal001.htm [Accessed 2007 Sep 12]

  25. Chun H, Shi H, Achari R, et al. Lansoprazole: administration of the contents of a capsule dosage formulation through a nasogastric tube. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 833–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. White CM, Kalus JS, Quercia R, et al. Delivery of esomeprazole magnesium enteric-coated pellets though small caliber and standard nasogastric tubes and gastronomy tubes in vitro. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002; 59: 2085–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Phillips JO, Metzler MH, Huckfeldt RE, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial of continuous infusion: IV ranitidine vs omeprazole suspension in the prophylaxis of stress ulcers [abstract]. Crit Care Med 1998; 26 Suppl.: A101

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sharma VK, Peyton B, Spears T, et al. Oral pharmacokinetics of omeprazole and lansoprazole after single and repeated doses as intact capsules or as suspensions in sodium bicarbonate. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000; 14: 887–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dunn A, White CM, Reddy P, et al. Delivery of omeprazole and lansoprazole granules through a nasogastric tube in vitro. Am J Health-Sys Pharm 1999; 56: 2327–30

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. DiGiacinto JL, Olsen KM, et al. Stability of suspension formulations of lansoprazole and omeprazole in amber-colored plastic syringes. Ann Pharmacother 2000; 34: 600–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Package insert. Nexium® (esomeprazole) delayed-release capsules and delayed release oral suspension. Wilmington (DE): AstraZeneca LP, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  32. Package insert. Prevacid® (lansoprazole). Lake Forest (IL): TAP Pharmaceutical Products, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://pitap.abbott.com/prevacid.pdf [Accessed 2006 Oct 30]

    Google Scholar 

  33. Package insert. Aciphex® (rabeprazole). Titusville (NJ): Janssen Pharmaceutica, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.janssen.com/active/janus/en_US/assets/jan/aciphexpi.pdf [Accessed 2006 Oct 30]

  34. Package insert. Protonix® (pantoprazole) delayed release tablet. Madison (NJ): Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wyeth.com/content/ShowLabeling.asp?.id=135 [Accessed 2006 Oct 30]

    Google Scholar 

  35. Metz DC, Ferron GM, Paul J, et al. Proton pump activation in stimulated parietal cells is regulated by gastric acid secretory capacity: a human study. J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 42: 512–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Richardson P, Hawkey CJ, Stack WA. Proton pump inhibitors: pharmacology and rationale for use in gastrointestinal disorders. Drugs 1998; 56: 307–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sostek MB, Chen Y, Skammer W, et al. Esomeprazole administered through nasogastric tube provides bioavailability similar to oral dosing. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 18: 581–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hassan-Alin M, Andersson T, Bredberg E, et al. Pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole after oral and intravenous administration of single and repeated doses to health subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 665–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Devlin JW, Bakshi A, Bungay K, et al. An in vitro comparison of different providers to deliver four proton pump inhibitor products through a feeding tube. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 1603–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Dentinger PJ, Swenson CF, Anaizi NH. Stability of pantoprazole in an extempora neously compounded oral liquid. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2002; 59: 953–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Roberts KW, Pitcher WD, Cryer B. Effect of lansoprazole suspension versus continuous intravenous ranitidine on gastric pH of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients [abstract]. Crit Care Med 2000; 28: 567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Levy MJ, Seelig CB, Robinson NJ, et al. Comparison of omeprazole and ranitidine for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Dig Dis Sci 1997; 42: 1255–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Burnett IE, Balkin ER. Stability and viscosity of a flavored omeprazole oral suspension for pediatric use. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006; 63(22): 2240–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Phillips JO, Metzler MH, Olsen K. The stability of simplified lansoprazole suspension (SLS) [abstract]. Gastroenterol 1999; 116A: G0382

    Google Scholar 

  45. Package insert. Zegerid® (omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate) powder for oral suspension. San Diego (CA): Santarus Inc., 2006

    Google Scholar 

  46. FDA. Electronic orange book, Nov 2005 (updated monthly) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/ob/default.htm. [Accessed 2006 Oct]

  47. Freston JW, Kukulka MJ, Lloyd E, et al. A novel option in proton pump inhibitor dosing: lansoprazole orally disintegrating tablet dispersed in water and administered via nasogastric tube. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 407–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Metz DC, Amer F, Hunt B, et al. Lansoprazole regimens that sustain intragastric pH >6.0: an evaluation of intermittent oral and continuous IV infusion dosages. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 23: 985–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Package insert. Protonix® IV (pantoprazole sodium). Philadelphia (PA): Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2005 Sep

    Google Scholar 

  50. Package insert. Prevacid® IV (lansoprazole). Lake Forest (IL): TAP Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2006 Oct

    Google Scholar 

  51. Package insert. Nexium® IV (esomeprazole sodium). Wilmington (DE): Astra-Zeneca LP, 2006 Sep

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jung R, MacLaren R. Proton-pump inhibitors for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Ann Pharmacother 2002; 36: 1929–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Taubel JJ, Sharma VK, Chiu YL, et al. A comparison of simplified lansoprazole suspension administered nasogastrically and pantoprazole administered intravenously: effects on 24-hour intragastric pH. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001; 11: 1807–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Daneshmend TK, Hawkey CJ, Langman MJ, et al. Omeprazole versus placebo for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: randomized double blind controlled trial. BMJ 1992; 304: 143–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Villanueva C, Balanzo J, Torras X, et al. Omeprazole versus ranitidine as adjunct therapy to endoscopic injection in actively bleeding ulcers: a prospective and randomized study. Endoscopy 1995; 27: 308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Lau JY, Sung JJ, Lee KK, et al. Effect of intravenous omeprazole on recurrent bleeding after endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 310–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Barkun A, Racz I, van Rensburg C, et al. Prevention of peptic ulcer rebleeding using continuous infusion of pantoprazole vs ranitidine: a multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison [abstract]. Gastro-enterology 2004; 126: A78

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hsu PI, Lo GH, Lo CC, et al. Intravenous pantoprazole versus ranitidine for prevention of rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding peptic ulcers. World J Gastroenterol 2004; 10: 366–9

    Google Scholar 

  59. Chan EP, Goebig M, Demers RF, et al. Intravenous pantoprazole to prevent rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding ulcers: initial US experience [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2003; 124(4 Suppl. 1): A626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zargar SA, Javid G, Khan BA, et al. Pantoprazole infusion as adjuvant therapy to endoscopic treatment in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: prospective randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 21: 716–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Howden CW, Metz DC, Hunt B, et al. Dose-response of the antisecretory effect of continuous infusion intravenous lansoprazole regimens over 48 hours. Aliment Pharmacol Ther; 23: 975-84

  62. Data on file, AstraZeneca, 2006

  63. Horn JR, Howden CW. Review article: similarities and differences among delayed-release proton-pump inhibitor formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 22 Suppl. 3: 20–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Package insert. Zegerid (omeprazole). San Diego (CA): Santarus Inc. [online]. Available from URL: http://www.santarus.com/pdf/package_insert.pdf [Accessed 2005 May 12]

  65. Kaplan G, Bates D, McDonald D, et al. Inappropriate use of intravenous pantoprazole: extent of the problem and successful solutions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 1207–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Heidelbaugh JJ, Inadomi JM. Magnitude and economic impact of inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in non-ICU hospitalized patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2200–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Schupp KN, Schrand LM, Mutnick AH. A cost-effectiveness analysis of stress ulcer prophylaxis. Ann Pharmacother 2003; 37: 631–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ennis RA, Gagnon YM, Rioux KP, et al. Cost-effectiveness in Canada of intravenous proton pump inhibitors for all patients presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 225–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lee KK, You JH, Wong IC, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of high-dose omeprazole infusion as adjuvant therapy to endoscopic treatment of bleeding peptic ulcer. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 160–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Barkun AN, Herba K, Adam V, et al. The cost-effectiveness of high-dose oral proton pump inhibition after endoscopy in the acute treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 194–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Barkun AN, Herba K, Adam V, et al. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition following endoscopic therapy in the acute management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers in the USA and Canada. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 19: 591–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Erstad BL. Cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitor therapy for acute pepticulcer-related bleeding. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 1277–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Galt KA, Galt MA, Sodorff MM, et al. Patient-perceived outcomes of an inpatient PPI therapeutic interchange program. Formulary 2001; 36: 340–54

    Google Scholar 

  74. Amidon PB, Jankovich R, Stoukides CA, et al. Proton pump inhibitor therapy: preliminary results of a therapeutic interchange program. Am J Manag Care 2000; 6: 593–601

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Galt M, Galt K, Sodorff MM. Cost minimization using market growth of a proton pump inhibitor therapeutic interchange program applied in a multi-hospital integrated health system [poster]. 11th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Managed Care; 1999 Apr 29; Minnesota (MN)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. Dr Olsen is on the speaker’s bureau for Astrazeneca, Santarus, TAP, and Wyeth Pharmaceutical companies. Dr Nissen has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this review.

The authors would like to thank Lisa K. Worrall, Drug Information Specialist, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, for providing information regarding the formulary process in that institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA

    Stephen W. Nissen &  Keith M. Olsen Pharm.D. (Professor and Chair)

  2. Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, 68198-6045, USA

    Stephen W. Nissen

Authors
  1. Stephen W. Nissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith M. Olsen Pharm.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith M. Olsen Pharm.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nissen, S.W., Olsen, K.M. Selection of Proton Pump Inhibitors for Formulary Inclusion. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 15, 289–298 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200715050-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200715050-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation